Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

New poll shows Democrats losing ground on national security

1. After closing the so-called "national security gap" in the 2006 and 2008 elections, congressional Democrats are losing ground on the issue, according to a new poll done by the Democratic firm of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. (The survey was done for Democracy Corps and Third Way.) Asked which party would do a better job on national security, 50 percent of likely voters chose Republicans while 33 percent opted for Democrats. Those numbers compare unfavorably for Democrats to Greenberg numbers in May of 2009 when likely voters were deeply divided on the question with 43 percent choosing Republicans and 41 percent Democrats. Even more concerning for the party in advance of the 2010 midterm election is that the erosion between the May 2009 and March 2010 was largest among political independents who now favor Republicans by a 56 percent to 20 percent margin. The reason for the slippage? "Historical doubts about the Democratic Party on national security show signs of reviving as many voters worry the president and his Administration are not dealing forcefully enough with terrorist suspects," according to Greenberg. To that end, a slim majority (51 percent) disapprove of President Obama's handling of the "prosecution and interrogation of terrorism suspects" while 46 percent of likely voters said they felt less confident about the Obama Administration's ability to deal with the terrorist threat following the attempted bombing on Christmas Day. Greenberg's advice to Democrats is to avoid arguing the terrorism and national security isues on "constitutional principles" but rather focus on the "broader context of the Obama administration's successful efforts over the past year to take the fight to the terrorists." Greenberg's numbers land less than two months after Democrats lost a Senate special election in Massachusetts, a Republican victory that strategists for Sen. Scott Brown acknowledged was due in large part to his focus on the Obama administration's plan to grant trials to accuses terrorists in civilian courts. Given Democrats' dismal numbers on the economy at the moment, any struggle on national security issues -- an area where the party seemed to have found a way to fight Republicans to a draw -- is doubly concerning with election day rapidly approaching.

2. Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the controversial Republican National Committee fundraising document in the news. The latest tactic? The Democratic National Committee is launching "Fight the Fear," an effort to catalog scare tactics being used by the other side. An email from DNC executive director Jen O'Malley Dillon announcing the campaign is being sent to those who donated to the committee in the immediate aftermath of the RNC document seeing the light of day last week; she promises to "call out the most egregious examples and "hit back hard with the truth in ads and organizing against the Republican candidates involved." The model for "Fight the Fear" is "Fight the Smears" (it even rhymes!), an effort launched by President Obama during the 2008 campaign to push back at misinformation that had found its way into the public dialogue. These sorts of tactics, which rate slightly higher than pure gimmickry, are aimed entirely at the party base; the goal is to drive enthusiasm/indignation that can be bottled in the form of grassroots organizing or, preferably, fundraising help. Finding ways to gin up the Democratic base is particularly important in the coming midterms as poll after poll has shown an intensity disparity between Republicans and Democrats.

3. National Democrats gleefully touted a new Survey USA poll in Minnesota showing that a majority of the state's voters disapproved of the job Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) was doing while an even larger percentage (63 percent) said that he should not run for president in 2012. Pawlenty spokesman Alex Conant ascribed the somewhat sluggish numbers to the fact that the governor "is making tough decision to balance the budget without raising taxes," adding: "It's premature to ask questions about 2012 -- let alone read anything into their results." While the numbers are far from stellar, it's hard to imagine that they will have any significant impact on Pawlenty's standing in the 2012 field. For one, politicians of all stripes and parties are deeply unpopular these days; in the same poll just one in four voters approved of how the Democratic-controlled legislature was handling its job while a whopping 66 percent disapproved. Second, most states tend not to think their home state politician should run for national office in the early days of his/her candidacy as they struggle to envision that person occupying the big chair. As campaigns drag on, the "rally behind our guy" phenomenon tends to take effect and, even if it doesn't, it will make almost no difference to Pawlenty's chances at winning the GOP nod since Minnesota is too late in the nominating calendar to have any significant impact. The constituencies that matter to Pawlenty now? Donors, grassroots activists and the Republican voters of Iowa and New Hampshire. Period.

4.New polling in the Kentucky Senate race casts businessman Rand Paul and Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo as the Republican and Democratic frontrunners in advance of the state's May 18 primary date. Paul, the son of Texas Rep. Ron Paul, held a 42 percent to 27 percent edge over Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the Bluegrass Poll conducted for the Lousville Courier-Journal by Survey USA. (Survey USA is an auto-dial firm; you can read about the issues with the auto-dial methodology here.) Grayson is the handpicked candidate of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) but has struggled to adapt to the grassroots strength (and fundraising prowess) of Paul. On the Democratic side, state Attorney General Jack Conway gets most of the attention in Washington -- he was recently on "Hardball" -- but Mongiardo boasted a 45 percent to 27 percent margin in the Survey USA poll. Mongiardo ran for the Senate in 2004 as a little known state senator and came withing a hair's breadth of knocking off Sen. Jim Bunning (R). Conway clearly has ground to make up but as of the end last year he had roughly $1 million more in the bank than Mongiardo, a financial edge that he will likely exploit in the final few months of the contest.

5. In a demonstration of the continued strength of the political operation the late John Murtha (D) built in southwestern Pennsylvania, the Democratic State Central Committee chose Mark Critz, Murtha's former district director, as the party's candidate for the May 18 special election in the 12th district. Critz beat out former state treasurer Barbara Hafer in the vote of party insiders; the short race had grown nasty as Hafer insisted that Critz would imperil the seat due to his testimony in front of the House Ethics Committee. Hafer had previously pledged to run in the May 18 primary -- yes, it's on the same day as the special election -- to try to become the party's nominee for the full two-year term this fall but it was not clear whether she planned to make good on that promise in the wake of her defeat. Republicans will choose their candidate -- businessman Tim Burns and 2008 nominee Bill Russell are in the running -- on Thursday. The GOP vote will be conducted among 134 Republican conferees from the counties of the district; each county gets one conferee and then an additional conferee foe every thousand votes that Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) won the in the county in the 2008 presidential race. The two big prizes: Westmoreland County (38 conferees) and Cambria County (26 conferees).

Talk about a load of Bull. I just read that Obama's national security numbers went up. At least he catches some terrorists. The Republicans send us to war looking for Osama Bin Laden, and today he's not even wanted for 9,11. Another thing I just read said that 8 out of 10 Americans prefer the Republicans when it comes to running the country. The poll gave them 5 stars when it come to abortion. Figures they'd throw that one in there. But it also says they prefer the Republicans policies when it come to the economy. What I want to know is - what policies? They haven't done anything for the economy in more than a year. This must have been a poll where only morons were used. The only "policy" I've heard out of the Republicans all year was tax cuts for their rich friends. That would've been a give-away that created zero jobs. Do those multi-nationals look like they need tax cuts. Just look at the market. Look at their earnings. Money is not the reason they're not hiring. Besides, don't you think paying them to lose our jobs and setting them up overseas was enough? And how do you give tax cuts to people that aren't working to get a tax cut? Republicans = dumb as a box of rocks. Campaign contributions are their top priority.

Chris I am wondering if you actually bothered to read the whole article on the accuracy of robo calls in polling? Your article leaves the impression, that you didn't. "(Survey USA is an auto-dial firm; you can read about the issues with the auto-dial methodology here.)"

From your referenced article: "Skepticism about IVR polling based on theoretical concerns is certainly widespread in the survey research establishment, but one can look long and hard for hard evidence of the lack of reliability of IVR, or even Internet polling, without success. Precious little exists, and the few reviews available (such as the work of my friend, Prof. Joel Bloom, or the 2004 Slate review by David Kenner and William Saletan) indicate that the numbers produced by the IVR pollsters comport as well or better than with actual election results than those from their traditional competitors."

It was Andrew Johnson - HOWEVER I think I will have to give it to you that Johnson was a Democrat

Johnson was a Democrat - elected to the Senate from Tennessee as a Democrat

In 1864, Lincoln tried to unite the North - and bring in the democrats who were loyal to the Union - so Lincoln ran under the "National Union Party" which included the Republicans and the democrats who stayed with the Union.

After the war, Johnson's political troubles with the Republicans began.

The democratic party declared itself the "PARTY OF WHITE MEN" - and Johnson aligned with them.

The demorats drop in national security polls I think has to do with the Dems overall response to nearly every issue in front of them. The majority democrats continue to cave on issue after issue in the face of minority GOP political bullying. When voters see this repeated cowardice and inability of democrats to defend themselves and their principles, they certainly won't trust the Dems to protect voters on anything as important to them as national security. How does one trust them to protect me when they refuse to defend themselves?

No one on the right is saying that "Being President while black" is an impeachable offense (I actually VOTED FOR the other black man running for President), nor is "Being President while democrat" (although it's probably just a coincidence that the only two U.S. Presidents impeached WERE Democrats ; )

Yes, that is definitely an "impeachable offense" as is anything else the (GOP) Majority House of Representatives votes as a high Crimes and Misdemeanors (don't forget the probably Treason and Bribery too ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 9, 2010 1:52 PM
---------------------------------
New impeachable offenses which the GOP votes as a Crime and Misdemeanor:

Being President while black;
Being President while democrat;
And, being President while pissing off the GOP.

Yes, that is definitely an "impeachable offense" as is anything else the (GOP) Majority House of Representatives votes as a high Crimes and Misdemeanors (don't forget the probably Treason and Bribery too ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 9, 2010 1:52 PM
---------------------------------
New impeachable offenses which the GOP votes as a Crime and Misdemeanor:

Being President while black;
Being President while democrat;
And, being President while pissing off the GOP.

Yes, that is definitely an "impeachable offense" as is anything else the (GOP) Majority House of Representatives votes as a high Crimes and Misdemeanors (don't forget the probably Treason and Bribery too ; )

Responding to a caller who asked him where he would go for health care if Congress enacts reform, Limbaugh replied:

I don’t know. I’ll just tell you this, if this passes and it’s five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented—I am leaving the country. I’ll go to Costa Rica.'

and this is why -- they have universal coverage:

The Costa Rican healthcare system is rated very highly on an international level, and the country’s citizens enjoy the health and life expectancy equal to that of more developed nations. These accolades come courtesy of strong, universal health insurance and excellent public and private hospitals.

Costa Rica’s public health insurance system, commonly known as the Caja, is available country-wide to all citizens and legal residents. There are ten major public hospitals – four in San Jose, including the Children’s Hospital – affiliated with the Caja. For non-emergencies and everyday medical care, small clinics, known as EBAIS (pronounced ay-vy-ice), are located in almost every community.'

that's right, unless you are rich in this country, you can get better medical in Costa Rica.

Obama has several impeachable offenses already - so next year will be interesting if the Republicans take control of the House - the first of which is this attempt to circumvent the rules of the Senate.

That is a violation of the Separate of Powers.

Obama has been manipulating the system - pushing a plan to undercut the "Rules of the Senate" which is a Constitutional provision.

Obama doesn't make the "Rules of the Senate" - the Senate does.

But Obama is desperately trying to violate the intent of those rules.

This is a political question - which requires a political solution - impeachment.

For the record, GWB delivered this ultimatum to the Taliban after 9/11:

1. Deliver to the US all of the leaders of Al-Qaeda;

2. Release all imprisoned foreign nationals;

3. Close immediately every terrorist training camp;

4. Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities;
Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection.

Because the Taliban refused, GWB got the United Arab Emirates, and later Saudi Arabia, to withdraw recognition of the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, leaving neighboring Pakistan as the only remaining country with diplomatic ties, prior to invasion on October 7, 2001, by the United States, aided by the United Kingdom, Canada, and supported by a coalition of other countries including several from the NATO alliance, who initiated military actions in Afghanistan, and bombed Taliban and Al-Qaeda related camps.

CIA's elite Special Activities Division ("SAD") units were actually the first U.S. forces to enter Afghanistan. Their efforts organized the Afghan Northern Alliance for the subsequent arrival of U.S. Special Operations forces. SAD, US Army Special Forces and the Northern Alliance combined to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan with minimal loss to Americans lives. They did this without the need for U.S. military conventional forces.

From the WaPo editorial by John Lehman in 2006:

"What made the Afghan campaign a landmark in the U.S. Military's history is that it was prosecuted by Special Operations forces from all the services, along with Navy and Air Force tactical power, operations by the Afghan Northern Alliance and the CIA were equally important and fully integrated. No large Army or Marine force was employed."

The stated intent of military operations was to remove the Taliban from power (which we did). Iraq served to draw terrorists into that country so that we wouldn't be attacked here at home.

This is no movie, this is no joke. In 37 years of reporting, this is the most important work I've done -- and now the truth is out.

When will mainstream media start asking questions about this ubiquitous domestic microwave weapon system, and why it's living virtually next door to every American, and terrorizing and impairing many of us?

he's doing more to route tha Taliban and AQ than Bush ever did, and all you care about is his absence of arrogant swagger. I suppose you'd be happy if he let another pair of ugly buildings get taken down by criminals but said "bring'em own" afterward.

The Christmas Day attack is Obama's fault because he made the U.S. weak knowing what the terrorists are trying to do. The shoe bomber is not Bush's fault because we were still ramping up to go on the offense. Just because you thought that the U.S. was at war with terrorists on 9/10 (good for you) doesn't mean that anyone else thought that.

==

next time you find yourself begging for responses and wonder why nobody bothers to talk to you, just read the raw idiocy of this post, it answers that perplexity all by itself. Idiot.

"I support playing by the rules of war and putting all opponents caught on the battle field in prisoner of war camps until the end of the war which IN THIS CASE WILL BE NEVER ... [p]risoner of war camps for life means no trials - just geneva rights" (Emphasis Added).

That, of course, is no way to obtain actionable intelligence from terrorists and (as Obama has pointed out himself) elevates terrorist thugs into noble soldier status.

The Christmas Day attack is Obama's fault because he made the U.S. weak knowing what the terrorists are trying to do. The shoe bomber is not Bush's fault because we were still ramping up to go on the offense.
-----------------------------
My brother and I got into a brawl when I was 10 and he was 12. He was pretty proud of his punching. But I knocked him down.

Impeached for PERMANENT POW camps, as you said, with the stated intent of never releasing said prisoners. You think that would have gone over better or worse in the Arab world than the Abu Ghraib pictures?

The Christmas Day attack is Obama's fault because he made the U.S. weak knowing what the terrorists are trying to do. The shoe bomber is not Bush's fault because we were still ramping up to go on the offense. Just because you thought that the U.S. was at war with terrorists on 9/10 (good for you) doesn't mean that anyone else thought that.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who is leading a coalition of anti-abortion Democrats standing in the way of party leadership efforts to pass a health bill, signaled Monday that the impasse may be close to resolution.

The Associated Press: Stupak "said he expects to resume talks with House leaders this week in a quest for wording that would impose no new limits on abortion rights but also would not allow use of federal money for the procedure. ''I'm more optimistic than I was a week ago,' Stupak told The Associated Press between meetings with constituents in his northern Michigan district. ... 'The president says he doesn't want to expand or restrict current law (on abortion). Neither do I,' Stupak said. "'That's never been our position. So is there some language that we can agree on that hits both points — we don't restrict, we don't expand abortion rights? I think we can get there'" (Flesher, 3/8).

Jake I did not say those things were your position - I said under your reasoning why is Christmas Obama's fault but the shoe bomber (after 911) is not Bush's fault - I do not blame either of them - I simply accept that our intelligence community is failing us.

Bottom line is, had Obama continued Bush's policies in Afganistan Afganistan would already be lost - it is not - they are actually pushing back the taliban.

The Soviets tried to impose their values and a centralized government on the people of Agfanistan - the US is doing no such thing - local tribal leaders are being given a lot of local power with government protection - there is a big difference in our policy versus the policy of the Soviets

It seems as if bobbywc wants to EXPAND our temporary holding facilities into PERMANENT prisoner of war camps (can you imagine the outrage from the left had GWB tried to go that far? He would have been impeached! But IOKIYAAD ; )

I am not saying that the shoe bomber was Obama's fault, nor is it my "reasoning" that Obama has prevented another 9/11 attack or that Bush got this country attacked. That's the exact opposite of what I am saying, and completely inconsistent, unless you blame FDR for Pearl Harbor too?

No, I do not believe Obama has made us "less safe." Quite the contrary. The world community again respects us -- at least, more than it did during eight years of Bush-Cheney tyranny.

Unfortunately, Obama has not moved to take down Bush-era programs that violate the human, civil and constitutional rights of all Americans -- and a program that silently TORTURES and impairs unconstitutionally "targeted" Americans:

And furthermore -- I believe you are part of the Kabuki Theater paid blog spamming operation that is conducting what amounts to an extortion campaign against the Washington Post in an effort to get the newspaper to eliminate or strictly "moderate" all blogs...

...so REAL people who have "diverging views" from the authoritarian bureaucrat cabal are silenced.

Liberals believe they can lie to the American people without consequence. Saying that politicians lie is like noting that rats like cheese. Without question, politicians from both parties are guilty of lying.

However, in the political realm, liberals lie much, much more often than conservatives. Why? There are two reasons for it. Conservatives tend to believe liberals are stupid, but liberals tend to think conservatives are evil. Is it wrong to lie about someone who's dumb? Yes. Ok, now would it be wrong to lie to stop Hitler? Ehr -- probably not. Because so many liberals view conservatives as evil, in their culture it's considered acceptable for them to lie about the Right. Very, very seldom will you ever hear a liberal criticize another liberal for lying about a conservative even though it's an every day thing in the liberal media.

Also, because the Left controls the mainstream media, they can often get away with lies no conservative ever could. Put another way, conservatives tend to be more honest because they have to be while liberals are used to having the mainstream media cover up, ignore, and explain away their lies.

The problem with that is that over time, the MSM has become less powerful and the new media has filled the gap. For example, when a cranky Harry Reid claimed at the health care summit that no one has talked about reconciliation, a video was quickly put out proving him wrong. Now that same video is in circulation, in the new media, proving that Harry Reid is a shameless liar with no personal integrity. The mainstream media is no longer the only gatekeeper for the news and it's allowing Americans to see through the lies of the Left faster than ever. That's why Barack Obama, who sometimes has trouble keeping his story straight from day-to-day, has dropped so far, so fast.

Jake - I guess the show bomber was Obama's fault? He envisioned Obama would come around some day and tried to blow up a plane under Bush?

Under your faulty reasoning I can say Obama has been in office for over a year and has prevented another 911 - he must be great.

What happened at Christmas had nothing to do with Obama - period - it was the same problem Bush faced - government employees not doing their job. Both events were the result of government incompetence and not policy.

Under your reasoning, Bush got this country attacked his first year in office -Obama has certainly not caused this county to be attacked his first year in office.

The fact remains - the Taliban is on the run in Afganistan and Pakistan - under Bush they were being given a free ride.

Are Nixon and Ford responsible for all of the bombings in NY and else during their terms? Or is it just that we cannot control everyone.

I do not support exanding GTMO - I support playing by the rules of war and putting all opponents caught on the battle field in prisoner of war camps until the end of the war which in this case will be never - it has been waging since the day I was born in 1958 -

Obama needs to show some courage and tell the people the truth about how Bush changed the rules. Prisoner of war camps for life means no trials - just geneva rights

Liberals believe that many Americans don't know what's in their own best interests. Liberals tend to falsely believe that they're better, smarter, and more caring than the average person. This often leads them to make rather glib and far reaching assumptions about the "best" way for OTHER people to live.

Why would anyone need a SUV or a gun? You don't REALLY need those things. Also, liberals know what your salary should be, how your children should be taught, and what words you should be allowed to use without hurting anyone else's feelings. Oh, you want to pick your own lightbulb? Nonsense: You might do it wrong! Let liberals tell you which one you need.

There's just something about liberalism that turns most of its practitioners, no matter how dumb or incompetent they may be, into finger wagging professors who want to lecture the rest of the country about how to live their lives. See the man running the show at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for a real world example of how that works.

I will agree that Obama's handling of domestic policy shows him to be weak and indecisive - some people could translate this into him being weak on terrorism - but on the terrorisms facts he was right about Afganistan and Bush was wrong.

I do not know if Iraq will turn to civil war, but let's not forget nearly 100 years after Jefferson signed the Declaration of Independence the US had its own civil war. Irag needs time to find itself and its own path. It cannot do that with a foreign army calling the shots. I am certain any move by Iran will result in a swift response by the US.

It is funny to me how Repubs blame Obama for the budget problems and then demand he spend more on defense. Defense is the only place left to cut if we ever hope to see a balanced budget again.

As a nation we need to unite- As a veteran who uses the VA I fully support a 20% cut in the budget. The VA can easily do this if it builds more CBOC clinics and slowly stops its subsidies of the medical schools. This is a complete waste of money.

I can assure you all 40 Republican Senators would vote against this. They like the billions in subsidies being paid to the state medical schools.

I hate that people blame Congress. The people are the problem - left and right. We want what we want and do not care if it bankrupts the country. Until the people stop saying enough is enough and mean it by supporting bugdet cuts to the defense budget and every other federal spending measure - it is all games and nothing will change

It is funny how GTMO is not a big deal anymore for the lefties (now that Obama is running it), except for bobbywc who actually wants to EXPAND it and scrivener50 who thinks that gov't cell tower microwave weapon systems (some of them are actually disguised as TREES!!!) are more of a priority.

One mystery remains, however—the apparent silence among Guantanamo's critics in the so-called world community. Here at home we finally learned that the Bush as Constitution-shredder writ—based on the employment of tribunals, renditions, intercepts, wiretaps, troops in Iraq, the use of Predator drones—was not principled, but partisan, and so disappeared when Bush left and Obama embraced all his predecessor’s anti-terrorism protocols (and, indeed, in some cases trumping them, such as Predator targeted assassinations).

Why, though, did the so-called international community give up on the venom of its criticism of America as the illiberal lawbreaker, when our policies have continued unchanged? Apparently the world’s elites piggybacked on the liberal domestic bandwagon stereotype of Bush as the swaggering Texas white male cowboy, and are now OK with Obama, the Nobel Laureate and postracial internationalist, continuing his policies unchanged, albeit with a few requisite sops and empty gestures like the KSM trial-balloon, the faux-deadline on Guantanamo, and the loud inquisitions of former CIA interrogators.

Will Rogers once said that it was not ignorance that was so bad but "all the things we know that ain't so." But our classroom indoctrinators are getting students to think that they know after hearing only one side of an issue. It is artificial stupidity.

A woman with a petition went among the crowds attending a state fair, asking people to sign her petition demanding the banning of dihydroxymonoxide. She said it was in our lakes and streams, and now it was in our sweat and urine and tears.

-sowell

this must be the stuff that is causing global warming, sorry, cooling. whatever.

Since you know that's not going to happen, will you agree that Obama has made us LESS safe?

bobbywc:

It's very simple, actually. For at least SEVEN YEARS (March 20, 2003-2010), GWB's offense in Iraq kept the terrorists busy there rather than here. The ONE (worst) action was trying to close GTMO, with the world apology tour not that far behind. Just like bin Laden was emboldened after Clinton withdrew from Somalia, other terrorists are going to say the same thing one day about Obama. Whether you like GWB or not, there's no denying that he prevented another 9/11 attack when all of us thought on 9/12 that was the other shoe just waiting to drop. Any more questions?

Given that there is now almost no leftwing furor over Guantanamo—reminding us that the problem was probably never the detention center per se, but rather the liberal narrative of George Bush as outlaw—there seems to have been an administration decision made not to worry much about reneging on the pledge to have closed it by January 2010. One mystery remains, however—the apparent silence among Guantanamo's critics in the so-called world community.

Obama’s speech in St. Charles — his second trip to a suburban St. Louis high school within the last twelve months — is set to begin around 4 p.m. Unlike previous events here and around the country, the event is not being billed as a townhall forum — in other words, no questions please.

the story of his life:

NO QUESTIONS.

he can't answer. he can't even keep his lying numbers straight. no teleprompter, no clue.

In the profile, Axelrod tried to dispel the universally accepted truth in Washington that the Obama White House is bad at communicating its message. Of course, the chief messenger himself, Axelrod, couldn’t make it through the entire interview without giving us language we normally associate with Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel saying he didn’t “give a flying [expletive] what the peanut gallery thinks.” The rest of the piece had a defensive Axelrod claiming not to be a sycophant and his friends worrying for his health.

But then, as almost an aside, comes this tidbit: “A few minutes later, Mr. Obama walked in unannounced, scattering two aides like startled pigeons. ‘Hey,’ Mr. Axelrod said by way of greeting (no ‘sir’ or ‘Mr. President.’)”

they don't even respect themselves. no wonder the cat is out of the bag and no one else respects them either.

Obama's sends inconsistent messages and polices on national security make people fell insecure. Western leaders are not entralled with the ego maniac either and look at his peace prize as the joke it is.

Jake exactly how have they made us less safe - can you reference one act by the Obama Administration which contributed to the Christmas event? No

Obama during the campaign complained about Bush ignorning Afganistan - he was right - Obama against the wishes of the left increased our troops and now has the taliban on the run. He got Pakistan to play a more aggressive role in the battle.

We are definately safer because of Obama. The problem with the terrorists is Bush's fault. Everyone caught on the battlefield should have been put into prisoner of war camps frome day one. They stay there until the end of the war. I am old enough to remember the bombings at Penn Station and La guaradia by the Puerto Rico Liberation Army (although this was never proven) As far as I am concerned the war on terror has existed my entire life time. So long as we are at war these guy sstay in prisoner of war camps - this is basically a life sentence.

Why do we not have this? Bush played games with the rules. There should be no trials for anyone caught in the battlefield. Bush is the one who changed the rules not Obama.

Back on topic, of course all polls since the Christmas Day plane bomber shows Democrats losing ground on national security (they are making us less safe and want to give TERRORISTS Constitutional rights!!!)

If you run the name of federal judge David Godbey you will see that the final vote was delayed. Leahy learned what happend and stopped the vote. He cut a deal with Bush and the allowed the vote to go forward. he then got on TV and complained the Bush Administration was withholding documents about his nominees. Leahy ahd the evidence Al Gonzales withheld the documents from the Senate

The speech issue involved KBH criminal trial. Judge Onion after the trial said he had never seen anything like it. On the day of trial the elected DA took over the case. He announced ready for trial. He chose to select a jury and have them seated. Judge Onion ordered Ronnie earle to call his first witness. Ronnie Earle refused to call any witnesses. Judge Onion ordered the jury to find KBH not guilty.

I knew of some bad dealing from Earle which went back to the Richards first election. The story was fulling covered in the Houston Post. I brought it to the attention of KBH. Her husband came into some interesting documents about $100,000.00 of county money being used to help Richardson. I have those documents with KBH home fax number marked on the top.

Several days later Earle refuses to put on evidence. I tried to tell the story. A court order actually issued to shut down my web page. I refused. - jail followed. KBH immediately nominated both judges involved for US District Judge and Us Attorney. Bush won the election and as they say - the rest is history.

A Latina running with White (assuming she is not a LINO - Latino in Name Only) will help White big time in Dallas, Houston, and maybe San Antonio. In the Lower Rio Grande Valleyt they will not care.

SA is an issue because the Bexar County Democrats are broke and cannot pay their bills - this is going to make getting out the vote difficult.

Sanchez from the LRGV ran for governor and lost because the LRGV refused to vote. Noriega last year ran for US Senate and lost because the LRGV refused to vote. Linda Yañez from the LRGV ran twice for Texas Supreme Court and lost because the LRGV refused to vote.

the corruption here is real and it all belongs to the Dems. Bill White was told by several groups to not stand side by side with the LRGV Democrats - he refused the advice and got in bed with the very people who are the problem. The LRGV did not turn out for the primaries

Bobby, what don't you like about White? I assume you don't like Perry from past comments, also how do you think White having a hispanic Lt Gov will play out in November? Just curious for you take on it.

Another day. Another story about how idiotic liberals are. This is not news. The bumbling fools will continue to sink until November, when they will be shown the door. This is the most corrupt and cynical admin in us history.

Yeah, I agree with you, Mark that Jindal has been pretty decent. I think most governors are pretty responsive to their states. It's just when they have national aspirations that they tend to go nuts. I'm sure Bush falls under this category. Romney too.

And I don't think Pawlenty will do all that well in the primaries, but he's pretty much thrown himself into the Presidential race and that makes what he does significant. Primary season gets longer and longer and it's good to know what people are up to. Pawlenty news is certainly more important than Palin news as the former is making actual moves while the latter is just spinning her wheels.

Todays marks one year after the markets' bottom. In those days, everything Obama did or had done was blamed for the markets' fall. Now, Republicans claim the extraordinary recovery, even the rock steady dollar, was either inevitable or irrelevant.

When the markets correct and they will, Obama will be blamed for the lack of investor confidence. When they recover again, he will be, etc., etc. Republicans have nothing but the politics of fear, all day, every day.

They sure do wish 2012 were today, they know by then, when the toxic assets have been written off, the deficit is dropping and the jobs numbers are slowly but steadily improving (the Republican nightmare scenario)...all this nasty fear and anger marketing will be sooo 2009-10, the Bush/Cheney hangover years.

"Washington (CNN) - Mitt Romney has a message to Tea Party candidates nationwide: If you lose your Republican primary bids, stay on the sidelines.

The former Massachusetts governor on Monday warned the grassroots movement not to mount third party efforts in general elections, which he said would siphon votes from Republican nominees.

"If there is a conservative candidate that runs in the general election, then obviously, divide and fail is the result," Romney said in an interview with the conservative Web site Newsmax. "Hopefully Tea Party candidates will run in respective primaries and they will either win or lose. And if they win they will go into the general. If they lose, they won't, and they will get behind the more conservative of the two finalists."

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made similar remarks last month in a speech sponsored by the Arkansas Republican Party. "Now the smart thing will be for independents who are such a part of this Tea Party movement to, I guess, kind of start picking a party."

elijah24, I'm not sure you can really break down legislators into separate groups like that. I think there are a lot of legislators who stand on principle more often than not -- the "public servants," as you put it -- but are still the will-do-anything-to-get-re-elected types as well. That's partly because people tend to think -- as the Fix's comment section often proves -- that what they believe is what everyone believes, so they can stand on principle and still be sucking up for votes. The other part of it is that voters really only pay attention to a very small fraction of what the average legislator votes on, so that legislator can stand on principle 90 percent of the time and no one will ever notice. Heck, half the time, he can make a disingenuous pitch to voters that runs totally counter to how he voted in Washington, and no one will notice if the pitch is consistent with his party's general attitudes.

That said, I do agree with you that the vast majority of legislators, despite their lust for re-election, do vote along the lines of what their constituents want and what they think is best for the country. Folk love to kvetch that their elected representatives aren't listening to the people, but what they usually mean is that their elected representatives are listening to too many of the other people and not enough to them personally.

Agreed, that Pawlenty has not been a successful governor like Barbour, Daniels, and Jindal. Ddawd, I think you would agree that Jindal has exceeded expectations.

I guess that CC posts TP stories because TP is a candidate, not in order to push his candidacy. I think TP is leaving a budget deficit like Goodhair created here with his last set of vetoes, that will show up NEXT year, as TP's legacy. Because of that probable fact, CC gives TP far more credit than he deserves with the false phrase "budget cutting". TP signed the benefit bills but vetoed some major tax bills afterward. He dug a hole. So has Perry in TX. Will the right voters know about each, in time?

"Fascinating poll. President Obama has captured or killed more of the Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership in one year than President Bush did in eight. Americans are foolish"

Good post. What they are is not too bright and brainwashed by the steady drumbeat of Republican propaganda they hear on TV and radio all day long, and read in newspapers like the Washington Post. In columns like this one, where every single day is a torrent of Bad News for Democrats, cherry-picked and massaged to present them in the worst possible light, along with daily puff pieces on particular R faves like 'TPaw'and Sarah Palin.

Add in a motley assortment of insomniac mental patients in the comments section and you have quite a mix.

I think there are 3 types of polititians. The 1st is the stereotypical baby-kisser. He (or she) has no interest in service. He is just a guy with a job who will do anything to keep it. Examples of this are Evan Bayh and Jim DeMint.
2nd are your Public servents. These are the ones who feel they are the best person for the job, and while they usually stand for their principals, they will occasionally cut a deal for electoral purposes if they feel it serves the greater good...even if that greater good is keempin themselves in office. This group includes most of congress and most of our elected officials. Specific examples would be Dick Durbin or John McCain.
The third group are the true statesmen. This is the guy who will place the public good over his electoral interests. These are not entirely uncommon, but we rarely notice them because they rarely last long. the last one to have a career long enough to merit notice (that I can think of anyway) is Birch Bayh.
It is unfair to judge an elected official by the standard of a Birch Bayh. Few can meet that standard. But I do believe (perhaps naively) that most fall into the 2nd group, and those who do should be appreciated. I don't think the first group is as big as we sometimes assume.

ENOUGH WITH THE TIM PAWLENTY BLURBS, CHRIS: It astonishes me that Chris continues to talk about Pawlenty. As a former resident of Minnesota, I can tell you that the state's economy is quite diversified. Target, General Mills, Best Buy, 3M, Medtronic and several other Fortune 500 companies are either headquartered or have their principal place of business there. Pawlenty has a large, healthy tax base and strong employment figures that have existed long before he became governor and continue today. So, he cannot credibly say that state economic woes are the reason for his low poll numbers. The reason people don't like Pawlenty is the fact that his substantive accomplishments are few and far between.

Again, Pawlenty hasn't had to face the challenges (nor has he exceeded expectations) in the same way Governors Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels and Bobby Jindal have.

We have already had too many politicians with paper thin resumes nominated for or winning the White House (George W. Bush and Obama are the latest two). The nation really doesn't need any more.

The democrats future is reliant on one thing and one thing only the unemployment numbers. If it gets in the 8% range by August than they will be fine, and if it drops to 7% by October than they might not lose anymore than 6-7 seats in the house.

DDAWD,
The economic component of energy reform is the thing that the environmental movement has been slow to embrace. They just don't seem to understand how people can ignore the environmental/moral argument and then get frustrated that nothing happens. The thing is that as Bill Clinton said "its the economy stupid", and if you can turn being environmentally friendly into an economic gain in some way than you will get what you want. That is what the Nuclear and ethanol industry has done over the past 5 years.

Our founders must be soiling themselves in their graves. We certainly have f'ed up the nation they sacrificed so much to build for us. And our brave servicemen and women who are sacrificing so much now to protect and defend a Constitution our federal elected representatives ignore every day must be wondering what the hell, why did I sign up for this? There are only a few in Congress who have the vaguest clue about or care about what's in the Constitution.

AndyR3, you're quite right. I didn't think in terms of benefits to non FF states. That could prove to be a potent combination. To improve the economies of these places AND be the morally right thing to do. I think the morality issue will be easy to sell if it doesn't require a great deal of self-sacrifice.

DDAWD,
I think the biggest thing is that there are a lot of states that don't benefit in anyway from Coal or Oil and they want to get a bigger piece of the Green Energy pie. For example South Carolina is planning on building multiple Nuc Plants which will benefit greatly from a cap and trade plan. This is the reason why you see people like Lindsey Graham supporting the legislation. The same goes for the Ethanol producing states like Iowa, Indiana, etc.

Also the fact that you have a GOP member (and a well respected one at that) helping to write the legislation will allow some of the Norhteaster and southern GOPers to sign on to the plan (ie Collins, Snowe, Brown and possibly Grassley and Voinovich). This will make up for the loss of the WV and Lousiana senators.

This just goes to show that people are misinformed and the Dems are not getting the message out. Under Obama there are now 3 times more troops in Afgahinstan you know the real war. In the first year drones attacks were more than entire Bush years. Under Obama more key leadership of the tailban and Al-qaeda have been kiiled or captured, we have had no 911 type of attacks, so please tell me how we are less safe under Obama compared to Bush.

I actually wonder about cap and trade. Think about health care reform. All of the objections are complete fabrications. Obviously it's not socialist, there's no government take over, there are no death panels, it's deficit friendly, and so forth.

So if Republicans lose their sh*t over imaginary concerns, how do you think they'll behave when there are legitimate concerns? Yeah, there are made up concerns like the legitimacy of climate science, but the job concern is a real one. Fossil fuel industries will be hurt by this. This might lose coal reps like Byrd and Rockefeller or oil reps like Landrieu or Begich where you will have Democrats unwilling to risk job loss by trying to limit consumption of these fuels. Greenhouse politics is really dicey since there isn't an immediate, direct effect on Americans. Public opinion isn't going to shift based on some drowning polar bears.

CC, the national security numbers are definitly not a great sign for the Democrats, but it really won't make a big difference in November since the voters will be focused on one thing and one thing only, the economy. The democrats future is reliant on one thing and one thing only the unemployment numbers. If it gets in the 8% range by August than they will be fine, and if it drops to 7% by October than they might not lose anymore than 6-7 seats in the house. Especially given the fact that they will pass healthcare, a bipartisan bank reform bill, and hopefully a comprehensive climate change bill (although this one is looking touch and go right now, but I have faith in Lindsey Graham and John Kerry to get it done).

The real interesting thing about the KY primary poll is that Paul and Mongriado are actually increasing their leads on the two hand-picked candidates. This is also a good sign for the Democrats since Rand Paul's extreme libertarian views may work well with the GOP base but eliminating Medicare usually doesn't sell well with the electorate as a whole.